If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[linaloki]

Rookherst[KOS]

linaloki

Rookherst[KOS]

I swear your Elf Lord in Disguise

Let's bet the golds on it! 5000g says it's Elf Lord using a mule.

But why Would I bets against, when I agree. ><

Because I recently spent all my monies on the sword I have and need more gold?

I should do a quest, really...

[Little Byakuya]

Rookherst[KOS]

I swear your Elf Lord in Disguise

And you're not a liar, as usual.

[Rookherst[KOS]]

Little Byakuya

Rookherst[KOS]

I swear your Elf Lord in Disguise

And you're not a liar, as usual.

I thought for a second that was an insult. Or is it? *confuzzled*

[Rookherst[KOS]]

linaloki

Rookherst[KOS]

linaloki

Rookherst[KOS]

I swear your Elf Lord in Disguise

Let's bet the golds on it! 5000g says it's Elf Lord using a mule.

But why Would I bets against, when I agree. ><

Because I recently spent all my monies on the sword I have and need more gold?

I should do a quest, really...

if you need monies for a particular item i'd be glad to donate some of my personal goldz. I gots enough as it is

[linaloki]

Rookherst[KOS]

Little Byakuya

Rookherst[KOS]

I swear your Elf Lord in Disguise

And you're not a liar, as usual.

I thought for a second that was an insult. Or is it? *confuzzled*

Liar.

OHNOESDILLEMA!

Dillema - Not nearly as good as dillpickle.

[Little Byakuya]

Rookherst[KOS]

Little Byakuya

Rookherst[KOS]

I swear your Elf Lord in Disguise

And you're not a liar, as usual.

I thought for a second that was an insult. Or is it? *confuzzled*

It isn't.
I just meant that you're right, as usual.

[linaloki]

Rookherst[KOS]

linaloki

Rookherst[KOS]

linaloki

Rookherst[KOS]

I swear your Elf Lord in Disguise

Let's bet the golds on it! 5000g says it's Elf Lord using a mule.

But why Would I bets against, when I agree. ><

Because I recently spent all my monies on the sword I have and need more gold?

I should do a quest, really...

if you need monies for a particular item i'd be glad to donate some of my personal goldz. I gots enough as it is

Meh. Only Item I'm desiring at the moment is my Nitemare Headband back... I curse the day I sold it... Two years ago, before it got expensive.

I need someone to make a nice costume for mein avi before I really start lusting for items. razz

[Rookherst[KOS]]

Little Byakuya

Rookherst[KOS]

Little Byakuya

Rookherst[KOS]

I swear your Elf Lord in Disguise

And you're not a liar, as usual.

I thought for a second that was an insult. Or is it? *confuzzled*

It isn't.
I just meant that you're right, as usual.

and my Confuzzlement ends. Huzzah!! I'm slow at 5:30 in the morning (who I'm kidding I'm usually slow)

Danke though.

[ty_ping]

yankeefan72

Marshal67

Quote:

AND IT IS THE BEGINNING!!! THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE START OF CHRIST!!! the old testament is still truth...

The OT testament is obsolete. Unless you can quote the Bible saying otherwise, then you are just spouting hot air.

Mathew 5:17
"Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fufill them

And how then do you inturpret this line? That all the old laws stand? that we are not saved unless we follow them? Well then Jesus himself was a sinner and directed people to disobay the old law as well, which just proves that YES, these people who stand against Gay Marrage ARE Bad Christians, AND really shitty jews.
Because what did Jesus die for if we can only find salvation through the law?
And
What does fulfill mean?

[ty_ping]

John Calvin

Marshal67

Shaviv

Hunter Blade

YOU KNOW WHAT MY POST WAS DELETED CAUSE I TALKED ABOUT SOMEONE'S CHARACTER....in truth this whole topis should be deleted! SAYING WE ARE BAD CHRISTIANS IS ATTACKING SOMEONE CHARACTER ALSO cause that is who they are...CAN YALL NOT SEE I SPOKE THE TRUTH AND IT GOT DELETED!!! AND IT IS THE BEGINNING!!! THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE START OF CHRIST!!! the old testament is still truth...ADAM AND EVE IT WAS NOIT ADAM AND STEVE!!!

1. Your post was deleted for a reason. You attacked someone rather than their argument, which is against the rules.
2. Don't make yourself look stupid. You're not stupid, are you? No? So go and read the damn thread before you make yourself look any more stupid. Go. Now. Do it.

Shaviv, you so have just became like my all time favorite gain heart

I begin to wonder if some reports about ED'ers being "elitist" is true.

If elite means being able to read and post something in a logical and debate like manner and having other ED'ers respect you for it.
Then yes.

but you're already one of us
one of us
one of us
*zombie shuffles towards you*

[ty_ping]

yankeefan72

now that i've given evidence for the old testiments truthfulness

You might want to consider checking above this post before you pat yourself on the back and call it a job well done because your evidence was kind of full of not truth and fail.

and I so read that as Truthiness
ohh Colbert...

Quote:

leviticus 18:22
'Do not lie with a man as he lies with a woman. That is detestable.'

Lets try that one again as well shall we
Leviticus 18:22 and why should a Christian, let alone a Jew give a damn?

Philosophical_Paradox

Leviticus has to do with homosexuality as a general construct.
To start with: Leviticus is part of the old law, as you know, and is non-binding to Gentiles and modern converts to Christianity, as we are given grace and the new covenant via Galatians, Acts 15, and Colossians 2 (particularly verse 14). Thus to apply this to Christian homosexuals slavishly, is quite frankly a poor use of scripture.
Secondly: The Hebrew for the verse is as follows:

Quote:

Va'th zakar lo thi shakab mishkaby inshah, toeb'eh hava

Of the verse, the two bolded words are the ones I will address in this response.
First there is zakar, which goes beyond simply "man" (enoch), but is a complex term meaning closer "one worthy of distinction/honor/note." It is a masculine term, as you well know, but does not apply to all men, only those of esteem in a culture/society at large.
Next there is toeb'eh, which is abhorrently translated as "abomination." Its usage elsewhere suggests quite clearly a closer tie with this word to ritual uncleanliness (which while being an abhorrent practice to G-d, is NOT a connotatively intrinsically disgraceful act due to the act itself). When translating into the Greek, the authors chose the word bdeglyma, which is closer to the latter, not the former's meaning. Grave sins in Hebrew were termed Zimmah, something the author did not apply to Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13.
Finally, looking at the scriptural and cultural context of the verse, a strange thing is noted. Whlie the beginning of chapter 18 certainly deals with sexual sins (incest, prostitution, etc.), a change occurs in verse 21, preceding the verse in question. It references the Mesopotamian fire god, Molech, and denounces those who sacrifice children, or quite literally give their seed to this god. This is not your run-of-the-mill sex sin...but a quite specific subset of idolatry related sex sins. This vice list is enhanced by the verse following 22, relating to women's sexual concurrance with beasts (beastiality was common mainly in fertility cults). Thus, all the pieces are in place for verses 21-23 to be a new vice list completely...as vice lists in Hebrew are very carefully constructed and do not break/meander without cause. So given it addresses ritual uncleanliness with men of note/worth, it seems far more likely that the verse in question deals with a much more specific condemnation than homosexuality as a general construct. Best option? Gender transcendence in terms of Mesopotamian fertility cults, particularly the cult of Innana/Ishtar...and later on Isis in Roman times. I'd suggest reading Will Roscoe's Priests of the Goddess, as it is quite the informative article about the practice of gender transcendence in this time and how it might relate to the passage at hand. Briefly- a priest would dress up in feminine garbs, and take the guise of the goddess to whom he was devoted. Local farmers would be well aware of these priests, as they and they alone seemed to have the power to bless the crops through intercession with the goddess (like Innana/Ishtar, since she has direct access to the Wheat God). Being the intercessor, the priest would demand sexual services in exchange for the goddess' blessing on the crop. This would be idolatry to G-d, as it placed another being before Him and detracted from worshipping Him...in short, a ritually unclean practice not to be done, with a person of esteem in the culture...fitting the bill of the Hebrew in verse 22.
In short, arguably does it have anything to do with a general condemnation as homosexuality as a whole, but rather a specific subset of it...though it is moot as per the taking away of the Old Law by the verses already mentioned, and non-binding resolution by one of the early Councils of Jerusalem as strictures against Gentiles and modern converts.

Plus, Jewish Law is very specific, looking into the chapter you can see how within the other sexual laws it outline that male AND female are not to partake in certain acts. Except this one which only seems to pertain to men, why would God make a law against homosexuals, but only have the law apply to men? And how could a Christian use this as blanket condement when it does not at any point refer to women?

While Tradidtional Judaism will argue that the commands for Jews not to "Do as they did in Egypt" applies to Homosexual women as women were permitted to marry one another there are many, MANY things they did in egypt, some of which the Jewish people continued to do anyway. This command is overtly vauge and could be refering to anything or simply reinforcing the specifications of the law, serving as a reminder of the uncleanslyness God was saving the Jewish people from. To connect such a compleatly vauge referance to another vauge referance and say "This means homosexual sex" is quite illogical.

[ty_ping]

yankeefan72

Marshal67

yankeefan72

Marshal67

Quote:

AND IT IS THE BEGINNING!!! THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE START OF CHRIST!!! the old testament is still truth...

The OT testament is obsolete. Unless you can quote the Bible saying otherwise, then you are just spouting hot air.

Mathew 5:17
"Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fufill them

Fulfill according to Webster.com. Look at definition C.

Also read this Collosians 2:14.

The OT is done away with.

ok now look at a b and d and the context it was used in in the bible.

Well then in that case lets drop the websters and look at the trasation of Pleroo which is traslated as fulfill
to render full, i.e. to complete

a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim

b) to consummate: a number

1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)

c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise

1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute

2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish

3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

Now every other case in the bible where I see Pleroo it is saying something is finished, or something cannot be finished until such and such happens.

I have come not to abolish the law but to put it into effect? Well considering the Law of Agape compleatly encompases the spiritual aspect of the law I can understand that. Option two means that Jesus was not the Messiah and we're all really bad Jews if his job was to just point out the law was VERY important.
Which then he was also a hypocrit considering he broke the law for the sake of the spirit.

Quote:

oh wow you can twist a verse that starts in the middle of a sentence please read Collssians 2:13-14 for the full sentece
bet you woln't make a link to that smart guy

Not that you couldn't look it up yourself dumbass but here have the whole book.
You started the one line quotes if you'll just look a few posts up, if you want full page quotations and full inturpertations of them then you have to outline it first and follow your own goddamn rules instead of whining when we post a one liner like you did.
So NOW go back up, post the entire Matthew page and tell us how it all inturperts that we have to follow the old law, and how that doesn't make Paul a sinner, Jesus a sinner, and how anyone from that point on has been saved considering Christians don't often listen to more then 20 of those 300-600 laws.

[ty_ping]

yankeefan72

John Calvin

yankeefan72

now that i've given evidence for the old testiments truthfulness

leviticus 18:22
'Do not lie with a man as he lies with a woman. That is detestable.'

There is a personal thing about myself in which I do wish to bring back some of the laws from the Old Testament. Really, I do. Anyway, even if I were to bring this up in a moral issue in regards to reconstructing the Law, I'd have to say that in this verse, it would only condemn homosexual sex, not being homosexual.

how many times does jesus call the pharises hypocrites for comments like yours????????

I think someone needs to bust out that dictionary again and look up hypocrit.
And then read that part with Jesus and the Pharasis again to reconsider whom they are calling a hypocrit.

[ty_ping]

yankeefan72

John Calvin

yankeefan72

how many times does jesus call the pharises hypocrites for comments like yours????????

What was it that I said, that you would regard me as one who is like a Pharisee? If anything, I am up for upholding the Law. Not that it can save me, for I am saved not by my works, but by the blood of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is not by works, but by grace, that I am saved. So, please tell me why you have regarded me as Pharisaic?

the pharises obeyed the law very strictly. but they didn't seek gods heart. they only wanted to look holy
if god hates gay sex im pretty sure he doen't love homosexuality

p.s. im not saying he doesn't love the people who are homosexual though

Reading comprehension is 0 isn't it?
Homosexuality. Is. BEING HOMOSEXUAL.
Homosexuality (AS IN BEING HOMOSEXUAL) is different from HOMOSEXUAL SEX.
which
IS. WHAT. JOHN. SAID.

Basically you called him a hypocrit, and then said the same thing he did in a much dumber way.

Maybe you should understand what people are saying before you try to call them on it.

plus, and this goes to everyone else too.

Would you all stop using a modern dictionary to inturperet the english part of a not english text using not modern english meanings.

[ty_ping]

yankeefan72

Rookherst[KOS]

yankeefan72

for once i agree with you god fogave everyones sins but that doesn't mean he likes when we sin.
if i murdered someone could god forgive me yes.
would murder still be a sin also yes

if gods laws don't apply anymore why do we even need grace??

Well you see....god said....

"these laws here, don't need em any more, but hey, I'm giving you these new ones.....theses ones, ya, stick to these ones"

so christians should ignore the ten commandments ok great plan you got there have fun with that

Yes.
YES THEY SHOULD!

You see because instead of 10 commandments they got one.
Guess what the interesting part is.
the ONE law, if you break any of the 10 commandments, you've broken the ONE law too.
Zainy isn't it?
So you're right, we SHOULDN'T listen to the 10 commandments, not unless we're going to follow that up and listen to the other 600 commandments that follow it because Jesus also says wny who break the smallest of the laws have broken all of them. So how can ou think yourself a good christian if you break tiny laws too. and I'm not saying lying
ho ho ho if ONLY
Theres the shaving laws, the clean food laws, the mildew laws, the work laws, how you treat your wumminsfold laws. Ever draw on yourself? yea you've sinned there too. Wearing Cotten Poly blend? *LE GASP* HEATHEN!! SINNAH!!!
Oh you Pharisis...